Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year. I understand three were because of compromising, and several were voluntary, but this is pitiful, and *we can do better*. If people on here want to be danged drama queens, they should just take it to email with the users involved. This, again, is pitiful. We've got to stop acting like this and BUILD THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thank you.
~Jonathan
On 27/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year. I understand three were because of compromising, and several were voluntary, but this is pitiful, and *we can do better*. If people on here want to be danged drama queens, they should just take it to email with the users involved. This, again, is pitiful. We've got to stop acting like this and BUILD THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thank you.
~Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an admin needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be dealing with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts. Less of that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish - it isn't a problem at all.
Majorly wrote:
On 27/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year. I understand three were because of compromising, and several were voluntary, but this is pitiful, and *we can do better*. If people on here want to be danged drama queens, they should just take it to email with the users involved. This, again, is pitiful. We've got to stop acting like this and BUILD THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thank you.
~Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an admin needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be dealing with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts. Less of that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish - it isn't a problem at all.
Of course I understand the compromising and the bad admins, but that is just about half of the total of de-sysoppings. Abut 25% were the user being tired of it, and the rest was pure drama, which is why I think this is pitiful.
~Jonathan
On 27/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
On 27/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year. I understand three were because of compromising, and several were voluntary, but
this
is pitiful, and *we can do better*. If people on here want to be danged drama queens, they should just take it to email with the users
involved.
This, again, is pitiful. We've got to stop acting like this and BUILD THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thank you.
~Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an admin needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be
dealing
with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts.
Less of
that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish - it isn't a problem at all.
Of course I understand the compromising and the bad admins, but that is just about half of the total of de-sysoppings. Abut 25% were the user being tired of it, and the rest was pure drama, which is why I think this is pitiful.
~Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Admins are allowed to get tired of it. They aren't forced to do anything. It can be very stressful.
Majorly wrote:
On 27/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
On 27/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year. I understand three were because of compromising, and several were voluntary, but
this
is pitiful, and *we can do better*. If people on here want to be danged drama queens, they should just take it to email with the users
involved.
This, again, is pitiful. We've got to stop acting like this and BUILD THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thank you.
~Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an admin needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be
dealing
with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts.
Less of
that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish - it isn't a problem at all.
Of course I understand the compromising and the bad admins, but that is just about half of the total of de-sysoppings. Abut 25% were the user being tired of it, and the rest was pure drama, which is why I think this is pitiful.
~Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Admins are allowed to get tired of it. They aren't forced to do anything. It can be very stressful.
Yet again, I understand that side of the story. But admins who retire because of a grudge against another user is nonsensical to me.
~Jonathan
Jonathan (Wikipedia) wrote:
Majorly wrote:
Admins are allowed to get tired of it. They aren't forced to do anything. It can be very stressful.
Yet again, I understand that side of the story. But admins who retire because of a grudge against another user is nonsensical to me.
Maybe so, but then that's their problem, not yours.
Ec
Majorly wrote:
On 27/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year. I understand three were because of compromising, and several were voluntary, but this is pitiful, and *we can do better*. If people on here want to be danged drama queens, they should just take it to email with the users involved. This, again, is pitiful. We've got to stop acting like this and BUILD THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thank you.
~Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an admin needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be dealing with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts. Less of that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish - it isn't a problem at all.
Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia has some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying to alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what I'm saying we need to get our act together about.
~Jonathan
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an admin needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be
dealing
with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts.
Less of
that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish - it isn't a problem at all.
Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia has some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying to alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what I'm saying we need to get our act together about.
~Jonathan
Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins than ever before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more edits than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw numbers are meaningless.
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Well said. And guess what: Next year, there will probably be more than there were this year, and so on. Nothing alarming here, really.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an
admin
needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be
dealing
with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts.
Less of
that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish -
it
isn't a problem at all.
Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia has some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying to alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what I'm saying we need to get our act together about.
~Jonathan
Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins than ever before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more edits than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw numbers are meaningless.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Similarly, nothing new. Wikipedia's expanding, so is the number of desysoppings. We've got better things to worry about, surely. AGK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 27/12/2007, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. And guess what: Next year, there will probably be more than there were this year, and so on. Nothing alarming here, really.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an
admin
needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be
dealing
with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a
problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts.
Less of
that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish -
it
isn't a problem at all.
Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia has some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying to alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what I'm saying we need to get our act together about.
~Jonathan
Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins than ever before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more
edits
than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw numbers are meaningless.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
AGK wrote:
Similarly, nothing new. Wikipedia's expanding, so is the number of desysoppings. We've got better things to worry about, surely. AGK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 27/12/2007, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. And guess what: Next year, there will probably be more than there were this year, and so on. Nothing alarming here, really.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an
admin
needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be
dealing
with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a
problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts.
Less of
that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish -
it
isn't a problem at all.
Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia has some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying to alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what I'm saying we need to get our act together about.
~Jonathan
Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins than ever before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more
edits
than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw numbers are meaningless.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia gets more admins with time. But this year had a massive jump in desysops. THAT'S why I'm getting worried.
I don't know, whats worrying? You seem to think the drama seekers are a problem - I don't know who the drama seekers are, but is it possible some of them are the ones who are leaving? Perhaps the sudden increase (as you see it) in desysoppings will help to counteract the drama that you dislike.
On Dec 27, 2007 7:07 PM, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
AGK wrote:
Similarly, nothing new. Wikipedia's expanding, so is the number of desysoppings. We've got better things to worry about, surely. AGK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 27/12/2007, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. And guess what: Next year, there will probably be more than there were this year, and so on. Nothing alarming here, really.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an
admin
needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be
dealing
with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a
problem.
Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts.
Less of
that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish -
it
isn't a problem at all.
Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia has some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying to alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what I'm saying we need to get our act together about.
~Jonathan
Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins than ever before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more
edits
than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw numbers are meaningless.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia gets more admins with time. But this year had a massive jump in desysops. THAT'S why I'm getting worried.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nathan wrote:
I don't know, whats worrying? You seem to think the drama seekers are a problem - I don't know who the drama seekers are, but is it possible some of them are the ones who are leaving? Perhaps the sudden increase (as you see it) in desysoppings will help to counteract the drama that you dislike.
On Dec 27, 2007 7:07 PM, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
AGK wrote:
Similarly, nothing new. Wikipedia's expanding, so is the number of desysoppings. We've got better things to worry about, surely. AGK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 27/12/2007, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. And guess what: Next year, there will probably be more than there were this year, and so on. Nothing alarming here, really.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Majorly wrote:
> How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an > >
admin
> needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be > > dealing
> with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a > >
problem.
> Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised accounts. > > Less of
> that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish - > >
it
> isn't a problem at all. > > > > Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia has some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying to alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what I'm saying we need to get our act together about.
~Jonathan
Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins than ever before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more
edits
than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw numbers are meaningless.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia gets more admins with time. But this year had a massive jump in desysops. THAT'S why I'm getting worried.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nathan, you have a good point. Most of the drama-making admins have already retired, thus, it might help.
Sorry, but I don't see any problem with this. Apologies for sounding a bit extreme Jonathan, but are you suggesting that "once an admin, always an admin?", or perhaps "de-sysoping means the admin in question has been too controversial, and is being forced to step down?" However, I do agree that we actually should get on helping build the encyclopedia instead of arguing about rights and such things.
Stwalkerster
On 28/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan wrote:
I don't know, whats worrying? You seem to think the drama seekers are a problem - I don't know who the drama seekers are, but is it possible some of them are the ones who are leaving? Perhaps the sudden increase (as you see it) in desysoppings will help to counteract the drama that you dislike.
On Dec 27, 2007 7:07 PM, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
AGK wrote:
Similarly, nothing new. Wikipedia's expanding, so is the number of desysoppings. We've got better things to worry about, surely. AGK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 27/12/2007, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. And guess what: Next year, there will probably be more
than
there were this year, and so on. Nothing alarming here, really.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
> Majorly wrote: > > >> How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an >> >> admin
>> needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be >> >> > dealing > > >> with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a >> >>
problem.
>> Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised
accounts.
>> >> > Less of > > >> that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish
>> >> it
>> isn't a problem at all. >> >> >> >> > Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia
has
> some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying
to
> alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few > retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what
I'm
> saying we need to get our act together about. > > ~Jonathan > > Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins
than
ever before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more
edits
than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw numbers are meaningless.
> WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > > _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia gets more admins with time. But this year had a massive jump in desysops. THAT'S why I'm getting worried.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nathan, you have a good point. Most of the drama-making admins have already retired, thus, it might help.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Simon Walker wrote:
Sorry, but I don't see any problem with this. Apologies for sounding a bit extreme Jonathan, but are you suggesting that "once an admin, always an admin?", or perhaps "de-sysoping means the admin in question has been too controversial, and is being forced to step down?" However, I do agree that we actually should get on helping build the encyclopedia instead of arguing about rights and such things.
Stwalkerster
On 28/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Nathan wrote:
I don't know, whats worrying? You seem to think the drama seekers are a problem - I don't know who the drama seekers are, but is it possible some of them are the ones who are leaving? Perhaps the sudden increase (as you see it) in desysoppings will help to counteract the drama that you dislike.
On Dec 27, 2007 7:07 PM, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com
wrote:
AGK wrote:
Similarly, nothing new. Wikipedia's expanding, so is the number of desysoppings. We've got better things to worry about, surely. AGK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:AGK en.wikipedia.org
On 27/12/2007, Rjd0060 - rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Well said. And guess what: Next year, there will probably be more
than
there were this year, and so on. Nothing alarming here, really.
On Dec 27, 2007 3:55 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
> On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote: > > > >> Majorly wrote: >> >> >> >>> How many of those were because of bad admins though? Sometimes, an >>> >>> >>> > admin > > > >>> needs a break from seeing extra buttons they no longer want to be >>> >>> >>> >> dealing >> >> >> >>> with, so will request to be desysopped. I don't see that as a >>> >>> >>> problem.
>>> Bad admins of course are a problem, and so are compromised >>>
accounts.
>>> >> Less of >> >> >> >>> that next year of course, but admins can resign whenever they wish >>>
>>> > it > > > >>> isn't a problem at all. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> Yes, but this is more than we've ever had. I know that Wikipedia >>
has
>> some admins retire, but we had more than last year. I'm not trying >>
to
>> alarm everyone, but this is scaring me just a bit. I've seen a few >> retirements because of a problem with another editor. THAT is what >>
I'm
>> saying we need to get our act together about. >> >> ~Jonathan >> >> >> > Of course there were more than ever before. There are more admins >
than
> ever > before. There are more articles than ever before. There were more > > > edits
> than ever before. One must have a sense of proportion here. What * > percentage* of admins was desysopped year over year, by reason for > desysopping? That would give us a reasonable comparison point, raw > numbers > are meaningless. > > _______________________________________________ > > > >> WikiEN-l mailing list >> WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: >> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > WikiEN-l mailing list > WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org > To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l > > >
>
Rjd0060 rjd0060.wiki@gmail.com _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia gets more admins with time. But this year had a massive jump in desysops. THAT'S why I'm getting worried.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Nathan, you have a good point. Most of the drama-making admins have already retired, thus, it might help.
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Stwalkerster, you're right. I guess end of discussion. ~Jonathan
On 28/12/2007, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
AGK wrote:
Similarly, nothing new. Wikipedia's expanding, so is the number of desysoppings. We've got better things to worry about, surely. AGK
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia gets more admins with time. But this year had a massive jump in desysops. THAT'S why I'm getting worried.
After long complaints that it was almost impossible to get bad admins removed, they're now getting removed with reasonable efficiency.
- d.
On Dec 28, 2007 8:59 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
After long complaints that it was almost impossible to get bad admins removed, they're now getting removed with reasonable efficiency.
And with lightning efficiency in the few cases of compromised accounts that popped up.
On Dec 28, 2007 7:33 AM, Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 28, 2007 8:59 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
After long complaints that it was almost impossible to get bad admins removed, they're now getting removed with reasonable efficiency.
And with lightning efficiency in the few cases of compromised accounts that popped up.
-- Stephen Bain stephen.bain@gmail.com
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
Frankly, I think that a healthy number of desysoppings is a good sign. First off, adminship is supposed to be *no big deal*, remember? Secondly, it means that the community makes it clear when people aren't meeting expected standards. Finally, the former admins who have voluntarily relinquished the bit are to be applauded; they have demonstrated a high level of self-awareness and respect for the project.
In the real world, organizations plan for a 10-12% turnover of management staff every year; Wikipedia is well below that level.
Risker
On 12/27/07, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year. I understand three were because of compromising, and several were voluntary, but this is pitiful, and *we can do better*. If people on here want to be danged drama queens, they should just take it to email with the users involved. This, again, is pitiful. We've got to stop acting like this and BUILD THE ENCYCLOPEDIA. Thank you.
~Jonathan
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 27, 2007 3:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
Frankly, I think that a healthy number of desysoppings is a good sign. First off, adminship is supposed to be *no big deal*, remember? Secondly, it means that the community makes it clear when people aren't meeting expected standards. Finally, the former admins who have voluntarily relinquished the bit are to be applauded; they have demonstrated a high level of self-awareness and respect for the project.
In the real world, organizations plan for a 10-12% turnover of management staff every year; Wikipedia is well below that level.
Precisely. I don't see anything particularly alarming about this. We can reduce drama, and should (though there will *always* be some degree of drama, as there is in any real organisation), but is there evidence that reducing the number of desysopings would reduce the amount of drama, or vice-versa? Correlation does not imply causation, and if anything, maybe we shouldn't have so many drama queens as admins.
Johnleemk
On Dec 27, 2007 3:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In the real world, organizations plan for a 10-12% turnover of management staff every year; Wikipedia is well below that level.
Exactly -- in fact, our desysopping rate has hovered right around 3% in both 2006 and 2007. Both 2006 and 2007 had ten involuntary desysoppings (ignoring those that appear to involve compromised accounts); in 2007 there were more involuntary desysoppings, but nothing significant percentage-wise.
It's important to understand that Wikipedia is a volunteer project -- people will move on to other things. There's nothing wrong with this turnover (although the drama should certainly be contained more than it is now).
On Dec 27, 2007 2:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In the real world, organizations plan for a 10-12% turnover of management staff every year; Wikipedia is well below that level.
But this isn't a matter of "management". Admins aren't management - they are editors who the community feels it can trust with a few extra tools. And admin tools are - fundamentally - editing tools. It isn't fair to separate voluntary from involuntary de-adminning - lots of people quit because they realise they are about to be fired.
There are a few reasons to be voluntarily de-adminned. The only good reason is because you no longer feel you need the tools - you aren't editing enough to justify having them. That's a fair reason. More often, it's a way to walk out in a huff, to throw a temper tantrum. It's just one more way to slam the door and hope people notice. Understandable. In some cases it's the hallmark of someone who wasn't well suited to being an admin in the first place, but often it's a sign of problems that should concern the community. Related to this is the "quit because of drama" kind of thing - either because you were involved in controversy, or because you were the source of controversy. As I mentioned before, there are the people quit because they can read the tea leaves. Sometimes this is also attention-seeking behaviour.
And then there are the people who give up the tools for none of these reasons. Often these are people who seem admins as managers, who didn't actually grasp the idea that adminship is an editing tool.
De-adminning isn't a very good metric for turnover. The number of admins who enter the "semi-active" and "inactive" categories is a far better measure.
If anything, 1% implies that we should be looking for more to investigate. i cannot believe that just that small number is the total size of the problem. No group of diverse voluntarily gathered people can do quite that well.
On 12/28/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 27, 2007 2:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In the real world, organizations plan for a 10-12% turnover of management staff every year; Wikipedia is well below that level.
But this isn't a matter of "management". Admins aren't management - they are editors who the community feels it can trust with a few extra tools. And admin tools are - fundamentally - editing tools. It isn't fair to separate voluntary from involuntary de-adminning - lots of people quit because they realise they are about to be fired.
There are a few reasons to be voluntarily de-adminned. The only good reason is because you no longer feel you need the tools - you aren't editing enough to justify having them. That's a fair reason. More often, it's a way to walk out in a huff, to throw a temper tantrum. It's just one more way to slam the door and hope people notice. Understandable. In some cases it's the hallmark of someone who wasn't well suited to being an admin in the first place, but often it's a sign of problems that should concern the community. Related to this is the "quit because of drama" kind of thing - either because you were involved in controversy, or because you were the source of controversy. As I mentioned before, there are the people quit because they can read the tea leaves. Sometimes this is also attention-seeking behaviour.
And then there are the people who give up the tools for none of these reasons. Often these are people who seem admins as managers, who didn't actually grasp the idea that adminship is an editing tool.
De-adminning isn't a very good metric for turnover. The number of admins who enter the "semi-active" and "inactive" categories is a far better measure. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
10-12% turnover voluntarily includes both people fired/asked to leave and those who resign or seek new employment for their own reasons, with somewhat of an overlap.
1% actually out and out fired is probably closer to accurate than 12%, though a fair number of "asked to leave" might have been fired.
Wikipedia people aren't making their livelyhood off working here on a volunteer basis - there's no life / support negative to walking away or reducing activity.
As others have indicated, if we look at admins who go admin-idle (stop or significantly reduce doing admin actions) or who leave the project entirely, the numbers are higher.
We have 1004 active administrators, 283 semi-active admins, and 164 inactive. That seems consistent with having had 10-ish percent go inactive each year.
On Dec 28, 2007 11:56 PM, David Goodman dgoodmanny@gmail.com wrote:
If anything, 1% implies that we should be looking for more to investigate. i cannot believe that just that small number is the total size of the problem. No group of diverse voluntarily gathered people can do quite that well.
On 12/28/07, Guettarda guettarda@gmail.com wrote:
On Dec 27, 2007 2:27 PM, Risker risker.wp@gmail.com wrote:
In the real world, organizations plan for a 10-12% turnover of management staff every year; Wikipedia is well below that level.
But this isn't a matter of "management". Admins aren't management - they are editors who the community feels it can trust with a few extra tools. And admin tools are - fundamentally - editing tools. It isn't fair to separate voluntary from involuntary de-adminning - lots of people quit because they realise they are about to be fired.
There are a few reasons to be voluntarily de-adminned. The only good reason is because you no longer feel you need the tools - you aren't editing enough to justify having them. That's a fair reason. More often, it's a way to walk out in a huff, to throw a temper tantrum. It's just one more way to slam the door and hope people notice. Understandable. In some cases it's the hallmark of someone who wasn't well suited to being an admin in the first place, but often it's a sign of problems that should concern the community. Related to this is the "quit because of drama" kind of thing - either because you were involved in controversy, or because you were the source of controversy. As I mentioned before, there are the people quit because they can read the tea leaves. Sometimes this is also attention-seeking behaviour.
And then there are the people who give up the tools for none of these reasons. Often these are people who seem admins as managers, who didn't actually grasp the idea that adminship is an editing tool.
De-adminning isn't a very good metric for turnover. The number of admins who enter the "semi-active" and "inactive" categories is a far better measure. _______________________________________________ WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
-- David Goodman, Ph.D, M.L.S. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:DGG
WikiEN-l mailing list WikiEN-l@lists.wikimedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l
On Dec 28, 2007 7:16 AM, Jonathan (Wikipedia) jonathan.wiki@gmail.com wrote:
Okay, there were a total of *79* de-sysoppings this year.
Nearly three-quarters of these were voluntary. There were 20 involuntary desysoppings in 2007, including those on compromised accounts. By my count 8 of those accounts have now been resysopped. So that's an average of about one long-term involuntary desysopping a month, which is still bad but seems quite small to me.